I have uploaded as my avatar on Twitter a picture of Clement Attlee, as we
are all to do in order to mark today's release of The Spirit of '45 on
DVD. I am sure that there is something else today about some dead Prime
Minister of far less significance than Attlee, as all of the others
are by definition. I can't think what it is, though. Obviously nothing
very important. And obviously no one very important.
Seriously, I was quite disappointed that no one waved a wad of cash and shouted "Loadsamoney! Loadsamoney!" Not even Cherie Blair. Whereas
a whole generation was either for or against Thatcher, a whole
generation is either against Blair in one way or against Blair in
another. But the entire generation is against Blair. The only
differences are about tactics.
Now, here are the Questions that are not being posed, because of the 2003 activities of the generational misfit and traitor, and bucket load of ballot box poison, Neil Fleming. Remember that name. Every time that you read something on here, or by me elsewhere, and you wonder why it does not have more of a platform, then that sorry state of affairs is all his fault.
Aided and abetted by a local party which cheerfully lost two council seats rather than let me contest one of them, and which nominated him without any selection procedure because of who his employer was. As well as a Constituency Labour Party which refused to nominate me for the National Executive Committee because that employer thought that I might get on. Thus spoke Tony Blair's Chief Whip. I was once her Sub-Agent, securing an overall majority of the total vote on a four-way split in a traditionally Conservative Ward. The Labour Party has never forgiven me for that. It never will.
Anyway, Fleming has ensured that there is no national or parliamentary platform for proposals such as those set out here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, to name but a few. Nor for the broader and deeper philosophy set out, at least in part, here. Nor for several newly emerging projects, such as the campaign for the Queen to unveil national memorials to those who did non-military service during the morally ambivalent and culturally catastrophic First World War, to the ILP Contingent that went to Spain in order to fight Fascism and ended up being killed there by the agents of Stalinism, and to those who were bombed out of British Palestine by the founders of modern terrorism.
For the fact that these things are not being articulated anywhere with a higher profile, blame Neil Fleming. He is now nominally the Press Officer for Labour North, although he does not appear to be told awfully much. Not if the fiasco over his attempt to succeed Hilary Armstrong was anything to go by. Ask yourself why he wanted to stop these positions from ever receiving such attention. To take an example at random, raising the age of consent.
Ask yourself why he wanted to ensure that no one ever asked Parliamentary Questions such as the following, arising as they do out of the character of Margaret Thatcher's funeral, out of the taxpayer's bearing of its cost, out of the cancellation of Prime Minister's Questions in order to accommodate it, and out of the silencing of Big Ben.
Aided and abetted by a local party which cheerfully lost two council seats rather than let me contest one of them, and which nominated him without any selection procedure because of who his employer was. As well as a Constituency Labour Party which refused to nominate me for the National Executive Committee because that employer thought that I might get on. Thus spoke Tony Blair's Chief Whip. I was once her Sub-Agent, securing an overall majority of the total vote on a four-way split in a traditionally Conservative Ward. The Labour Party has never forgiven me for that. It never will.
Anyway, Fleming has ensured that there is no national or parliamentary platform for proposals such as those set out here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, to name but a few. Nor for the broader and deeper philosophy set out, at least in part, here. Nor for several newly emerging projects, such as the campaign for the Queen to unveil national memorials to those who did non-military service during the morally ambivalent and culturally catastrophic First World War, to the ILP Contingent that went to Spain in order to fight Fascism and ended up being killed there by the agents of Stalinism, and to those who were bombed out of British Palestine by the founders of modern terrorism.
For the fact that these things are not being articulated anywhere with a higher profile, blame Neil Fleming. He is now nominally the Press Officer for Labour North, although he does not appear to be told awfully much. Not if the fiasco over his attempt to succeed Hilary Armstrong was anything to go by. Ask yourself why he wanted to stop these positions from ever receiving such attention. To take an example at random, raising the age of consent.
Ask yourself why he wanted to ensure that no one ever asked Parliamentary Questions such as the following, arising as they do out of the character of Margaret Thatcher's funeral, out of the taxpayer's bearing of its cost, out of the cancellation of Prime Minister's Questions in order to accommodate it, and out of the silencing of Big Ben.
First, where, when, how, why, and by whom was it decided that neoliberal capitalism and its neoconservative foreign policy were now the official ideology of this State, and beyond question even on the floor of the House of Commons, the business of which has been suspended in order to glorify that ideology? Extremely prominent seats were allocated to Dick Cheney and Binyamin Netanyahu, as he calls himself. They were closer to the bier than the Queen was, or even than Lady Thatcher's children were. Departing mourners were air-kissed at the back of the Cathedral by Tony and Cherie Blair. Obeisance was made not only by Parliament, but also by the monarchy, by the churches, by the print and broadcast media, by the Corporation of the City of London, and most especially by the Police and by the Armed Forces.
Secondly, where, when, how, why, and by whom was it decided that political office and military rank were now interchangeable, even identical? No other reasonable inference can be drawn from the burial with full military honours of a politician who was never a member of any of the Armed Forces.
Thirdly, where, when, how, why, and by whom was it decided to draw a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, beyond which, in relation to London, all territory has literally been alienated, and declared occupied rather than integral? In view of the first two Unasked Questions, we in the Occupied Territories are well and truly bracing ourselves.
Fourthly, what would the 700 and more military personnel have been doing today if this funeral had not been taking place, how could those duties have been cancelled or postponed at such short notice if at all, and how many of those personnel are expected still to be in their jobs this time next year?
Fifthly, on what would the £10 million that this funeral has cost the taxpayer otherwise have been spent, how can that spending be foregone, and what plans are in place to deal with the consequences of that foregoing?
And sixthly, when is legislation going to be brought before the House of Commons to recover those costs by levying a charge of £770 on each of the 13,000 beneficiaries of the reduction in the top rate of tax on incomes above £100,000 by Blubbing George Osborne, who is himself one of those beneficiaries? Lord Prescott cannot table any such amendment, since the House of Lords has no power over finance. But nor is any such being tabled in the Commons. Anyone who has read to the end of this post knows whom to blame for that. Perhaps we should all sue Neil Fleming for £10 million?
Secondly, where, when, how, why, and by whom was it decided that political office and military rank were now interchangeable, even identical? No other reasonable inference can be drawn from the burial with full military honours of a politician who was never a member of any of the Armed Forces.
Thirdly, where, when, how, why, and by whom was it decided to draw a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, beyond which, in relation to London, all territory has literally been alienated, and declared occupied rather than integral? In view of the first two Unasked Questions, we in the Occupied Territories are well and truly bracing ourselves.
Fourthly, what would the 700 and more military personnel have been doing today if this funeral had not been taking place, how could those duties have been cancelled or postponed at such short notice if at all, and how many of those personnel are expected still to be in their jobs this time next year?
Fifthly, on what would the £10 million that this funeral has cost the taxpayer otherwise have been spent, how can that spending be foregone, and what plans are in place to deal with the consequences of that foregoing?
And sixthly, when is legislation going to be brought before the House of Commons to recover those costs by levying a charge of £770 on each of the 13,000 beneficiaries of the reduction in the top rate of tax on incomes above £100,000 by Blubbing George Osborne, who is himself one of those beneficiaries? Lord Prescott cannot table any such amendment, since the House of Lords has no power over finance. But nor is any such being tabled in the Commons. Anyone who has read to the end of this post knows whom to blame for that. Perhaps we should all sue Neil Fleming for £10 million?
Just re-read both books, absolutely brilliant. Sent you an email, assume your university email address is the same as it always was but notice you are now one of those people too important to appear in the directory.
ReplyDeleteYou always were a man of mystery, Durham's David Lindsay because Durham has to have a David Lindsay and we don't ask why. You somehow gave that impression even as an undergrad. How's life up the Hill?
To business, your questions about the Thatcherfest are the most pertinent thing I have read about them anywhere and you are a terrible loss to the parliamentary process. You could have got a hundred votes against the PMQs cancellation.
Done a bit of asking around about this old adversary of yours, looks like he has put up his girlfriend for a ward where they don't live to use it as a base to get her in Parliament on his behalf when Pat Glass retires but the women only short list remains in place. The Independents who have the seat have got their number, though.
Speak to you soon.
Very many thanks. Yes, I got it. I'll reply once I finish this. My university email address is the same one that it has been since October 1997. But it is wired up to my Hotmail one, which is the one that I use all the time.
ReplyDeleteLife up the Hill is good, with both of next year's JCR Sabbatical positions, as President and as Bar Steward, having gone to my tutees. I wait for years to get either, and then both come along at once. I have had one narrowly lose President before, and another one who was disqualified for electoral fraud and who in general is probably now in prison. He certainly ought to be, and if he has not yet ended up there, then he will in due season.
But let's stay on topic, shall we? You are very kind. But you will see, from your own words, why I no longer bother with the party, as such, in these parts. In any case, Pat, who is superb, is going to be in office for many more years yet. People our age have already run out of time if they had their eyes on this seat. As they had.